"much worse performance, etc."?
"Cubase 5 (2009) has all these things working beautifully.?
Mate, if you know Ableton Live only from the "Showcase" why do you post such nonsense as comment???
Cubase and "Performance"???
Sorry, this is just the most horrible side from Cubase, worst performance after Pro Tools.
Work with Ableton Live one Month, discover the benefits from e.g. Drum Racks or possibilities from the clips to create a song and we talk once again....

 

A bit trolling I smell here, don't I?

You have used Live for a couple of years, and now you discover the arrangement stuff? Seriously?

People who complain about Live's failures concerning arrangement or midi or latency compensation should carefully take a look at the name: "Live".

Live was mainly designed for performing music live, not for tedious arrangement of a symphonic score consistent of hundred tracks. And it does very well for what it was designed for. If you play Live live, you don't need midi editing, no arrangement like Cubase, no high quality reverb, no latency compensation, because in a club or a DJ set no one cares about that stuff. That's why Live is the choice number one for a lot of performers and DJs.

So if you want to go a little Hans Zimmer, you really should consider a 'standard' arrangemen' DAW like Studio One, or Cubase, or Sonar or whatever. But there will be no cracked Cubase, so you have to buy.

I'd like to buy Cubase, but as I don't and will never support dongles, I have to look for alternatives.

 

I smell a bit of trolling. Firstly the reason I never used arrangement is because I only did sound design with live.
You cant judge people complain about live s failures if the product is advertized lets say, dishonestly. Since I dont know what version live is advertized as a fully functional daw with all the benefits of live performance. That was done through regular advertizing and also by respected artists who were in some way or another involved with live. I cant believe you actually said that you smell trolling and then you come up with most hideous argument.
I m not a dj, I m a sound designer, I bought live because I bought into promises and its marketing pitch.
And by the way, i m planning on arranging a lot more complex stuff than zimmer so I m taking studio one, thank you very much for advice

 

Performance as in efficiency not as in live performance. Cubase is one of the better performing DAWs, I know because I've tested pretty much all of them. Live 8 which is supposed to run better than 9 runs much worse than Cubase 5. I know about Drum Racks in Ableton and that's cool but it's not enough to make up for the negatives for me. Also mixing in Cubase is better, it's a common complaint about Live. Quality of the sound engine is better too, just saw that reaffirmed in the DAW video SAiNT posted.

 

So you bought Live just for a little bit of sound design. You didn't use the trial before I guess. Ok, well, right..

Seriously, you should not buy stuff because of shiny marketing, you should consider collecting opinions of people already using it.

Ableton Live was never advertized as a DAW for arranging complex orchestral structures, it was and is advertized as a tool for live music production/remixing/DJing.

Here is someone who does not bitch about Ableton's lacking midi capacities, but just does good music with it:

Daniel James

Nice to hear that your stuff is more complex than Zimmer's, we all looking forward to your music then.

 

If you have the statement that you bought x product cause of marketing/advertising.. Its really up to you not the company.

Marketing/advertising made their job in selling the product.


I see alot of people jump the wagon on live. Specially people new into music production. They think ableton is a simple software. Which i believe is a little bit harder to work than regular Daws such as Studio one/pro tools.


Live needs to improve the arrangement window. :/